The criteria for determining whether the preparation of objective questions for qualification examination for licensed real estate agents deviates from or abused discretion;

In the setting of objective questions for qualifying examination for licensed real estate agents, an error in legal principles is unreasonable as a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, and even if there is no error in legal principles, it is so wrong that the subject of examination at an average level is unable to choose a legitimate answer port as a result, even if the subject of examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination level is so wrong that the examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination level is merely a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority. However, even if there is no error in legal principles, and there is insufficient or inaccurate expression of language in the text or answer, but an average level of examination at an examination at an examination level is insufficient or inaccurate, it is difficult to see that the examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination level is deviating from or abuse of discretionary authority by making an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination level, unless there is a special reason to the extent that the examination at examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination at an examination level is not acceptable.

Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 8(1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7638 of Jul. 29, 2005; see Article 4(1) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act); Article 10(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 19248 of Dec. 30, 2005; see Article 5(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act); Article 13(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (wholly amended by the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions) (see Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm One, Attorneys White-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu10848 decided Oct. 17, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In the preparation of the objective question for the qualification examination for licensed real estate agents, an error in the legal principles by premised on the legal principles contrary to the statutory provisions or established interpretation is unlawful as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power. Even if a person does not commit an error in the legal principles, it is so erroneous that the examinee at an average level would be merely wrong that the choice of the text structure or expression in the text or answer clause would lead to a failure to choose a legitimate answer port. However, even if there is no error in the legal principles, it is difficult to say that the examinee at an average level would be a deviation or abuse of discretionary power due to such an error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da390, Apr. 10, 201). However, if there is no error in the legal principles, and there is insufficient or inaccurate expression of language in the text or answer clause or answer clause, but the examinee at an average level would not be a deviation or abuse of discretionary power due to such an error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da396390, Mar. 960, 201).

In addition, due to the nature of the objective test questions, the degree of questions and the instructions for the selection of answers must be objectively grasped and assessed in the test questions itself, and without any special circumstance, it cannot be determined by writing the intent of the questions at will beyond the limit of the text, but it is not explicitly determined by the text, but by the comprehensive analysis of the text and answer questions, the instructions for the selection of questions clearly and implicitly through the comprehensive analysis of the text and answer questions are determined. Thus, the examinee is required to put only one suitable for comparison and examination of the contents of the text and answer in question according to the above explicit and implied instructions (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du236, Oct. 22, 2002, etc.).

2. The court below cited the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant conducted a qualifying examination for additional licensed real estate agents on May 2, 2005. The above examination was divided into the first examination and the second examination. The second examination subjects are three subjects of the Real Estate Brokerage Act, the Acts and subordinate statutes on real estate disclosure and the Real Estate-Related Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “second subject”), the regulations on real estate brokerage among real estate construction methods (hereinafter “third subject”), and the regulations on real estate brokerage among real estate construction methods (hereinafter “third subject”), and at least 40 points each subject after preparing 10 points each 40 points each subject, and at least average 60 points each subject, the court below determined that the plaintiff still failed to pass the second examination and to pass the examination on the first examination, and that the plaintiff's second examination points and points Nos. 1 and 55, 45, 3 and 72.57 points each of the above examination, and thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff's second examination did not have any justifiable reasons for passing the examination or the second examination points that the plaintiff's second examination.

However, Article 19(1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7638 of July 29, 2005) provides that "a broker who has employed a broker and a broker assistant employed by the broker shall be deemed to be the act of the broker employed by the broker, and the answer that the broker and the broker assistant employed by the broker shall be deemed to be "if the broker and the broker Eul caused property damage to the broker due to intentional or negligent conduct of his/her business, the broker shall be limited to the broker Eul who is the party to whom the broker is liable for damages if the broker Gap is negligent." This provision provides that "If the broker caused property damage to the broker due to his/her intentional or negligent conduct of brokerage, he/she shall be limited to the broker Eul who is the party to whom the broker is liable for damages if the broker was negligent, and even if the broker and the broker's liability were somewhat strengthened or expanded as a result of the above extension of employer's liability, it appears that there is no error in the court below's appointment of the broker and the employee's.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim by deeming that there is no illegal or unreasonable reason in setting and grading the remaining problems, and therefore, the above error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, violating the rules of evidence, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)